Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The Titiwangsa Central Forest Spine covers 30% of the total rainforest area in Peninsular Malaysia and with high biodiversity
Evidence B:The TCFS- proposed project area is home to 135,000 Indigenous Peoples, host to around 18 KBA’s, patches of intact forest, diverse wildlife including several mammal species under threat of extinction and providing other environmental services, including as source of water to Penisular Malaysia
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: As indicated in the spatial resource
Evidence B:The area reportedly contains more than 341.7 million tonnes of carbon stock and have the capacity to mitigate 3.87 million tonnes of carbon from emission while sequestering 45,681.3 tonnes of carbon per year.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: As detailed in the project proposal, the constraints are due to a combination of external threats and lack of coherence in national policies.
Evidence B:Although not evident from the Supporting Spatial Resources provided with this scoring tool, proposal describes existence of IPLCs in the area dating back to almost 2 decades using and managing the forest in their traditional ways . The proposal also posits that 10-20% of the land is gazzetted as Orang Asli reserve while the rest are under the state.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: Proposal explains the links between Orang Asli (indigenous) communities and the surrounding forest areas.
Evidence B:The proposal elaborates the dependence of the around 9 diverse IPLCs on the territories found in what is the “TCFS” for their overall wellbeing including culture and identity for thousands of years. The rich physiogeological and biological resources, including the pathches of intact forest lands reflect the principle of sustainable use among IPLCs which are also expressed through their spirituality and harmonious relationship with nature.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Cumulative development pressure seems to relatively increase from medium low to very high from inside to the fringes of the TCFS. High to very high development pressure is particularly observed in areas with land deals. These pose serious threats to lives and limbs of IPLCs within the area and other biodiversity .
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The Federal Constitution acknowledge customary land and the Aboriginal Act 1954 provides for IPLC use of land and access to resources but not ownership as provided for by the UNDRIP. There are policies, listed by proponent, in place but are not being maximized for IPLC-led conservation.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Based on national and state policies and strategies, there are spaces and opportunities for IPLC-led conservation. How this are being operationalized on the ground, however, may be a challenge especially among IPLCs who lack engagement with government agencies or are misinformed.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: The indigenous organizations have been working actively in these areas, however to the extent that these are due to the interventions of the organization is a claim that would need to be analyzed further.
Evidence B:Proponent has 8 years of work with 30 villages around capacity building that enable 10-15% of communities to engage in advocacy; highlight of past work is the resolution of 5 land/forest cnflict cases in favor of the IPLC against a logging interest.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: There is a caution to this however as the Organization proposes to solicit money from the communities without themselves offering in cofinancing (even in-kind). This would seem to be an undue burden to the community and would need to be properly resolved if there is a second stage.
Evidence B:Proponent has sourced out 3 small -medium amounts to co-finance the project. It has three other proposals on the pipeline. Interestingly, it also includes “community counterparts” in its resource mobilization.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The proposed approach is seemingly well-aligned to ICI objectives. There is, however, very weak acknowledgement/linkage of existing IPLC structures, knowledge and practice that viz-a-viz contemporary /mainstream practice based on state laws.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Activities and results are well aligned but may benefit from being more specific and defined measures/targets.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:As it is, without specific and measurable results, the proposal is slightly overambitious. In addition, a 2 day training for IPLCSs with heavy content like national policies and a 2 weeks mapping may be very sweeping and may pose challenge to substance and learning.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: With the budget range, more ambition could be anticipated.
Evidence B:The proposed scope of the project, activities and results are within the EoI range of investment. Need to develop the detailed workplan not only to thresh out budgetary requirements but also how to operationalize the observations in the items above.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:A small amount ( U\(D 68,500.00) of co-financing has been secured. There are 3 other identified potential source of cofinancing, which , if realized, will contribute to a total of U\)D 182,094.00 only.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:From the total TCFS area of 1.6 million hectares, the project targets a high of 1.1 million hectares, or almost 70% of the TCFS under improved management, directly benefitting only 25% of the estimated 135,000 IPLC population within the area.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: The organization could be encouraged to condense their indicators into a few that would be relevant while being easy to monitor
Evidence B:Additional cultural and livelihood indicators are aligned with the project goals. However, as indicators, they have to be reformulated to define how it is measured. This, and the results expected from the main activities proposed may benefit from the gathering and/or development of a baseline data.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The project is a continuation of an earlier initiative proven successful in terms of sustaining biodiversity with benefits to IPLCs. Existing policies and practice, however, perpetrates threats to sustainability. Significantly associated to sustaining conservation and biodiversity is the general call for the full and effective recognition of IPLCs and their rights to their territories in policy and practice at all levels.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The proponents are experts in various fields needed for the project. The project has defined at least 4 ways on how it will contribute to the NDCs and consistency with 5 NBSAP goals.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:There is nothing explicit on gender except in response to question 15. It would be good to see how this approach, described in question 15, is further actualized in the activities, outcomes and results.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The proposed activities and results have a potential transformative result at scale but may be significantly relative to the level of capacities, strength and particular situations of IPLCs involved.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The proponent is an NGO partnering with IPLC networks, NGOs, Academe and some government agencies.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Proponent demonstrate technical expertise and leadership related to the project. Its geographical reach, however, is limited and taps on other organizations for this purpose.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: In any further iteration of this proposal, the clear roles of the two IPLC organizations need to be identified. COAC has indicated it had not been aware of this project proposal and this may be similar for other organizations named in the proposal, on the other hand JKOASM has put in a letter of support. Considering that a range of stakeholders, including government departments are named in support of this proposal, further development should be conditional upon being able to mobilize their consent for participation.
Evidence B:Except as facilitators for activities, IPLC organizations listed as partners have no defined roles in project design and governance. This should be addressed in the development of a full proposal.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The lead proponent is composed of technical experts in various natural sciences and conservation fileds, and have implemented a 3-year project under the UNDP GEF exposing them to the GEF’s project management system.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: As per information contained in the proposal.
Evidence B:The proponent have at least five funding streams and perform annual external audits. It is currently implementing a project with funds at the U\(D 100,000 - 1M. Past projects, based on references given, range from U\)D 7,000 - 50,000.00
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: Receiving an SGP grant does equate experience with safeguard standards
Evidence B:The proponent recieved a 3-year grant from GEF under UNDP’s Small Grant Programme. How it institutionalized the safeguards/standards from this earlier engagement is not clear/explained.